Talk:Borderline personality disorder/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

EMDR

Does anyone know if EMDR has been successful for patients with BPD? It might be important to discuss if so.

The Movies

The movie list is ridiculous and false in many instances. Girl, Interrupted is fine because it is actually a memoir about a woman who is diagnosed with the disorder. Borderline and Bad timing as well, but Single White Female? The Crush? These are weird opinions of someone who knows little about fiction writing and less about mental illness. There is never any mention of BPD in many of these movies. It's, at best, an unfounded opinion, at worst simple mis-education. People come to this site to learn about something. --jenlight 22:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Fatal Attraction? EVEN if the women in these movies were actually supposed to have had BPD, the movies themselves are not at all helpful in their discussion of the illness. It's like linking The Texas Chainsaw Massacre to schizophrenia. It's not an accurate portrayal -- when was the last time you heard of someone stalking or boiling pets that had BPD? JenniSue 23:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Pointing to popular media as a reference for medical conditions, when the symtpoms of those conditions may be misconstrued as fact is a serious consideration. JenniSue, as for stalking and boiling pets...would you like to see my case files? Fatal Attraction is an extreme, but not inaccurate account of violent versus demure BPD. May I suggest that you refrain from judging things for which you have no point of reference? --Mjformica 17:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't need a "point of reference" to know that the term borderline personality is/isn't mentioned in a movie. The fact that you have anecdotal evidence of some people with BPD who've engaged in behavioral extremes doesn't mean that it's accurate -- or fair -- to use those examples as representative of everyone who does. How many people with schizophrenia have suffered -- continue to suffer -- because of popular media's portrayal of them as deranged killers? If you treat people with BPD, I would think that you would not want stereotypes about them perpetuated. In any event, you've missed the point -- WHY does a list of movies that don't even mention the term BPD belong in an encyclopedia entry?JenniSue 02:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I remeber reading an interview with one of the people who worked on Fatal Attraction saying it was a depiction of a person with BPD. If I find it I'll refrence it. --Unopeneddoor 22:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Just as much as there's no reason to include the list of movies in this article, there's also no reason to let this disagreement escalate any further. Many articles on wikipedia seem to develop burgeoning "in fiction" or "in film" sections simply because many drive-by editors will add to them because their experience with the subject is limited to fictional contexts and they naively believe it to be helpful to the article. I agree it's not useful to have this list in this article, and moreover is very bad as JenniSue is correct in noting that the films do not cite BPD explicitly and we're otherwise lacking any references/sources/citations that would connect the two. I also agree with Mjformica, however, that the behavior portrayed in these films is not at all inaccurate. From my professional experience as well I can say that stalking is hardly unusual, and though boiling pets is very specific, behaviors of similar severity are not unknown.

In short, it doesn't seem like anyone is arguing in favor of retaining the movies, and therefore there's no need to drag this out. Ad hominems are not helpful, nor is swallowing the bait and making it a knockdown. siafu 03:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

JenniSue -- as my "anecdotal" evidence is being corroborated, I won't address that. And I was making no reference to the inclusion of the movies on this page...I agree that their inclusion is absurd...I was making reference to the ill-informed nature of your statement. I refer to one of my original comments to you, personally...stop thinking like a defender of the helpless (an admirable profession, to which I avow my respect) and start thinking like an academician.

--Mjformica 11:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see my statement below re intellectual honesty -- something most folks would agree is important for an "academician"JenniSue 23:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Just because a movie does not specifically cite that it is about BPD does not mean that the behaviors displayed within the movie are not accurate to portray the disorder. The main character in Mommy Dearest was known to have BPD; however the movie never mentions this. Does this mean that the movie can not be cited as an example for those wishing to understand the disorder?

Fair enough if it's in the book. CalG 16:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I've seen at least three different Abnormal Psychology textbooks that cite Fatal Attraction as being a film example of Borderline Personality Disorder. In one of the clinics I worked at, we even had trained and licensed people who referred to any patient with BPD coming in as "A Fatal Attraction. I think it should be added back to the list. The fact that they don't talk about it in the movie is moot. American Psycho doesn't explicitly mention Antisocial Personality Disorder, but I've seen plenty of books and textbooks that cite it as a good example.Dlmccaslin 03:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Psycho(pathy) is synonymous with antisocial personality disorder, so that's different. I don't see many of the attractive qualities of bpd in Glenn Close's nutter, iirc she's more of a slut than a skilled user of sexual power. Which are the three books citing the film? CalG 17:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

As a person who has BPD, I cant assure you that we dont boil or would ever harm any animal. I think the fatal attraction comparison is awful and disgusting. insulting. the one in girl interrupted is more accurate. and if they specifically dont say that glenn close's character has BDP, then I think the movie should not be cited. Most people with BDP LOVE animals and would never ever hurt them. They are a source of unconditional love, and they wont abandon you. The two things that people with BDP worry about the most. Also, it sounds like Glenn Close's character, IF she had BDP must have also had Antisocial personality disorder, if she hurt the animals. Comorbid disorders can not be used to represent one disorder only. olayak

the 'border' between psychosis and neurosis

I have removed the following passage, because it is inaccurate.

Unfortunatly, the biggest problem with BPD is that it is in fact on the border between mental illness (psychosis) and personality disorder (neurosis). This causes a problem, because the treatment to neurosis and psychosis is diffrent. While psychosis often demands hospitalisation, BPD will often prefer suicide over hospitalisation. And therefore this is impossible.

The idea that BPD is on the 'border' between psychosis and neurosis is an old one which has been discredited. As is pointed out in the article's opening paragraph, this idea has been superseded by the theory that BPD is primarily a disorder of emotion regulation. Look at the diagnostic criteria: criterion 9 says that a BPD sufferer may experience transient paranoid or dissociative symptoms during periods of stress, etc; but that's as close as the criteria get to saying anything at all about psychosis. R Lowry 14:20, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

the NIMH site

The outline and most of the text for this article seems to be lifted pretty directly from the NIMH site. I'm a new wikipedia user -- is that typical? http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/bpd.cfm 19:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The NIMH article is in the public domain, and may be freely used. A citation is included at the bottom of this Wikipedia article. R Lowry 23:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the mental health pages being based on public material from the National Institute for Mental Health. Every page on that organisation's website has the banner: "Working to improve mental health through biomedical research on mind, brain and behavior"(emphasis mine). This is not an unbiased source but an organisation that works exclusively within a medical model. NIMH is also exclusively American - under 'Facts about NIMH' and 'Mission Statement' it states 'we harness powerful scientific tools to achieve better understanding, treatment, and eventually, prevention of these disabling conditions that affect millions of Americans".

2 percent of all adults?

From where does the "2 percent of all adults" figure come? Personality disorders are notoriously underdiagnosed (given their lack of response to medication), so I'm skeptical of a clear figure like this, especially without a direct citation. siafu 23:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Never mind; I traced it from the NIMH article. I still think a claim like this deserves to be vetted, so I'm going to check it out at the library. siafu 00:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at this

Could someone with more knowledge of BPD than I have a look at the nonBP article? I gave it a general copyedit and wikification, but the article seems quite POV, and almost seems to say that carers of BPD sufferers do not have a rational view of the world. The majority of the content was added in November 2003 by an anonymous contributor, and it has only received copyediting and wikification since then. Graham/pianoman87 talk 12:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I will undertake to redress this one, as common wisdom (emphasis on common) has me placed as something of an expert on BPD and its corrollaries. The term nonBPD is anecdotal and describes something that I like to refer to as a 'counter-borderline character' (that term is copyrighted, folks).

Don't expect anything immediate as my patient load ramps up during the holidays, but I will attend to to it as soon as time permits. Mjformica 01:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Merging Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder into this article

Someone suggested merging the aforementioned article into this one. I think it's a good idea, since the article mainly consists of some diagnostic criteria, and the rest of this article applies also to those. If there's a poll, I hope someone will notify me on my talk page and possibly user page. Rōnin 03:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I merged the relevant information from the other article. Barring any objections, I'll list it at AfD in a couple of days. siafu 04:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Huge objection. ICD-9 criteria and DSM-IV-TR are not equivalent. They should not be presented as such. It confuses the diagnostic paradigm with the descriptive...apples and oranges.

In addition, "nonBPD" is a reactive character style, not a personality disorder. Merging the nonBPD article with the BPD article would be like merging an article on co-dependence with one on alcoholism. Related, but not integrated, in a scientificially meaningful manner. Mjformica 01:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Alcoholism and codependence is a false analogy; "NonBP" is entirely dependent on BPD for its definition-- one can be codenpent without ever meeting an alcoholic in your life. The "BP" stands for Borderline Personality, and I don't see why this wouldn't work as well, if not better, as a section of this article instead of a seperate article. ICD-10 (not ICD-9) does actually map pretty well with DSM-IV-TR, particularly in this case. Specifically, what is the difference that you're concerned about here? They're not being presented as exactly equivalent anyway, the criteria are listed seperately. siafu 03:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder is not NonBP, and I would ask you to please keep that debate separate from this one, as it has no relevance to this one. If you'd like to discuss a potential merger with NonBP, please do it in a separate section. With regards to Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder, while you state that the ICD-9 and DSM-IV-TR criteria aren't equivalent, you're not stating why. They were previously portrayed as being equivalent on both pages, and you've presented no arguments to the contrary. Is there a psychiatrist in the house that might clear this up? Rōnin 04:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not a psychiatrist; my job at the CMHC I work at (in Illinois) is in billing. From that, however, I can tell you quite clearly that as far as Medicaid, Medicare, and insurance companies are concerned, ICD codes map directly to DSM-IV diagnosis codes. If there's a subtle difference, we'll need it spelled out, and perhaps it can be explained in the article. siafu 04:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's the conflict I'm having with this entire conversation. None of you are demonstrated mental health professionals. You either work in the mental health fields, or, one supposes you have some personal experience with the area in question. However...

"Alcoholism and codependence is a false analogy" (siafu), is a gross generalization, and clinically inaccurate. In addition, I was not making an analogy...I was making a pointed contrast. You are correct in your assertion that the "NonBP is entirely dependent on BPD for its definition" - but so is the non-anything. You missed the subtlety of the point I was making -- or maybe I didn't make the point clearly enough. Mia culpa, where applicable.

Further (Ronin), I didn't intend just that ICD and DSM were not equivalent. DSM is a portional and elabortated subset of ICD. Merging them would be inappropriate, and deflect years of work by the APA. They do map (siafu), but they are not equivalent. That distinction should be made.

Finally, you are correct in pointing out my confusion about which articles were to be merged. One should not read/write after taking Thera-flu... :-)

OK...here are my thoughts...(1) Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder and BPD are not the same thing. Their criteria are relative. BPD is a subset of EUPD, where EUPD is a medical diagnosis, and BPD is a psychiatric diagnosis -- unless you live in Europe, then the ICD is applicable. I am speaking from the point of view of a diagnostician, not the insurance companies here, siafu. (2) The distinction between the ICD and DSM needs to be made. (3) I will re-write the nonBPD article from a clinical point of view. (4) I will resolve, in the future, not to shoot my mouth off after having taken cold medicine.

Lastly, I will apologize in advance for any perceived arrogance or high-handedness on my part. My intention here is to cooperate, not engender conflict. However, as an internationally recognized authority on the Borderline Personality who has a handful of graduate degrees, and quite possibly may have more years in clinical practice than some of you have on the planet, challenges make me testy -- it's the professor in me.  ;-) No harm, no foul. Mjformica 13:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't merge, or undo merge, as it seems to have been done already. BPD corresponds to EUPD/borderline type (ICD F 60.31). Do not merge non-BP into this article, because there is a lot more to say about the borderline disorder, there are different presumable causes also a short summary about complex PTSD needs to be added (but keeping the main article on Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (C-PTSD) separate]]. Add short summary of non-BP article here and leave the bulk of the text on that score in separate article. As of yet, the non-BP article has info only from a popular self-help-book (Stop walking on eggshells), which would not match the more clinical info in this article. If there is more to add from a clinical point of view, I am looking forward to reading that.--Fenice 20:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know under what answer to place this; But i would say: Don't merge. As someone said, none so far are psychologists or have any professional experience within the field. Neither am i. But i have been diagnosed with first Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder, and later BPD. And even though the difference is subtle, there is a difference. So i would rather have more info on the general Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder and link to more spesific under categories like BPD. Mriswith 21:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The current section on nonBPs

The current section on nonBPs seems perhaps a little POV. Rōnin 04:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It is, along with being inaccurate. I will undertake to re-write it. Mjformica 13:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent revisions to non-BP and abbreviations

An anonymous user/editor used BPDx -- that stands for BP diagnosis, not disorder, as s/he intended (by context). The universally accepted abbreviation for disorder is D/O -- if we are going to use abbreviations (which I don't think we should be using) we should get 'em right. Mjformica 16:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

gender identity

aside from the cursory mention it gets in some highly quoted documents (including diagnostic manuals), there is no actual proof or evidence that gender identity problems have anything to do with borderline personality disorder. this contributes to the widespread alienation, enforced invisibity, and villification of transgendered people who become involved with the mental health care system. i am deleting references to gender identity now, except in the case of quoted diagnostic criteria that should include details showing that there is no clinical evidence for the connection (someone please work on this). reverting to include gender identity should be provided with actual proof and verifiable experience (e.g. as with unbiased comprehensive studies), rather than cursory unexplained mention. thank you.

Gender identity issues tend to arise in BPD patients as a function of the dissociative aspects of the disorder, and the collapse of regard for social boundaries. The overwhelming desire on the part of the BP to get connected and stay connected is the engine for this. This condition also helps to account for transgender and same gender sexual liasons within this population; liasons that would not normally occur when the patient is in a stable state. It is a symptomatic breakthrough, and not a co-occurence or co-morbidity. Plainly put, you can't draw a straight line from GI issues to BP issues in either direction. Mjformica 14:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Controversy/misuse of the BPD diagnosis

I think this article should include a discussion of the misuse of the BPD diagnosis. It is not uncommon to see people who are difficult, demanding, manipulative and/or unpleasant labelled by clinicians (especially non-physicians/psychologists) as BPD. While people with BPD can be all of these things, those are not the diagnostic criteria. Men who exhibit the same behaviors get labelled ASPD. People who are in the early stages of dementia, are cognitively challenged, and/or head injured show up in emergency rooms because they are emotionally out of control or have attempted suicide or are self-mutilating and the staff just assumes its another BPD patient. Also might be helpful to have some discussion about the fact that many folks age out of BPD -- they may still have distress and problematic behavior, but they no longer meet the criteria -- which argues that it's NOT actually a personality disorder but something else.JenniSue 23:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to provide some references for these assertions; it certainly not obvious that any of these things are in fact the case. In my experience, the exact opposite happens, i.e. personality disorders are very rarely given, even in cases where clinicians will freely admit that their clients meet the criteria, simply because they're not billable. Most often, also, when a client is particularly demanding or unpleasant, it's stated factually in the progress notes (e.g., "Clt. expressed a great deal of anger at this writer", etc.) and the Axis II features are included in the diagnosis without a full diagnosis of BPD or ASPD (or NPD or whatever the relevant case is). siafu 03:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Women & Borderline Personality Disorder by Janet Wirth Cauchon; Through the Looking Glass by Dana Becker are the two references that come to mind re the misuse of the BPD diagnosis. The primary argument of both authors is that BPD diagnostic criteria are extremely subjective (i.e. "frantic attempts to avoid abandonment") and an attempt to pathologize female behavior. Once a person (usually a woman) is diagnosed with BPD, then it is much easier for clinicians to discount what they have to say. "We all know borderlines exaggerate and outright lie, they're manipulative and superficial"-- everything she says/does/feels becomes suspect. And then, there's no reason to look any further for an explanation for their symptoms.

This phenomenon is not limited to psychiatry/psychology -- just ask anyone who's been FINALLY diagnosed with fibromyalgia. And, as I mentioned, there's a male version of it with ASPD. You are right that most insurance companies are not going to pay for treatment of Axis II disorders -- but diagnoses are not always made in the context of providing treatment. They're also made in disability/insurance evaluations and forensic cases, where it is advantageous for one side to get an Axis II diagnosis. It's not the bomb that "secondary gain" or "appears intoxicated" (with no tox screen) are, but it can be pretty damning.JenniSue 07:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• If by "most" you mean "all"... siafu 23:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, probably all. I think some medicaid programs will pay for BPD treatment under certain conditions but since I don't work in reimbursement, I'm not entirely sure what the mechanism for that is. I only see it up front in terms of criteria for a medicaid vendor to allow folks into their program. I know my insurance doesn't pay for it. JenniSue 23:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I have never encountered an insurer that would reimburse for treatment for any personality disorder, BPD or otherwise (This isn't a practical problem, though, as anyone with a diagnosable personality disorder can also be presented as having a "kosher" Axis-I diagnosis, usually major depression or bipolar II disorder or something similarly "mild" that is really better understood as part of the Axis-II pathology). Clinicians are also wary of doling out diagnoses for personality disorders because the general belief is that they are "death sentences"; i.e., they represent lifelong disorders but cannot be treated with medication, and they're afraid of the potential response of the client or the client's family (or, as mentioned the insurer) to such a designation. BTW, medicaid is possibly the most conservative of all insurers; I'm only intimately familiar with Medicaid Rule 182 in Illinois (which covers mental health), but I would be generally surprised if some other state did have such coverage as it runs rather counter to the Medicaid philosophy. siafu 23:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, I have about a half-dozen patients with Axis II dx that are covered. And I know that insurance covers every DBT IOP that I have ever encountered. --Seriphim 00:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You can have an Axis-II dx and an Axis-I dx (in fact, all five are supposed to be covered in the assessment), but if Axis I is V71.09 (no dx), and Axis II is a personality disorder, there's no coverage. DBT is covered under the modality in which it's used. siafu 01:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course all 5 are supposed to be covered. This "if Axis I is V71.09 (no dx), and Axis II is a personality disorder, there's no coverage" however, is not true in my experience. --Seriphim 17:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

So, which insurer is it, precisely that allows primary billing on a personality disorder? siafu 19:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I counted 3 on my docket just today. Policies vary not by carrier, but by subcriber. I've got a Value Options BCBS who would get denied without an Axis I primary, but a Value Options (employer specific -- HIPPA) that takes Axis II as a primary, and only. Go figure. --Mjformica 03:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

POV, POV, POV, POV. The same could be said about ADD, ADHD, Pediatric Bi-polar, Complex PTSD, and a host of other diagnoses. Two references do not an argument make. It is true that BPD is overused, but that is because it's the flavor of the week, and frankly speaking, and as a recognized authority on Borderline personalities, most clinicans -- even those writing on the subject -- have never encountered a true borderline...there's no mistaking them.

As for Fibro and ASPD, we have yet to determine if these are manifest psychosomatic disorders tied to agitated depression.

And this statement, "You are right that most insurance companies are not going to pay for treatment of Axis II disorders -- but diagnoses are not always made in the context of providing treatment. They're also made in disability/insurance evaluations and forensic cases, where it is advantageous for one side to get an Axis II diagnosis.", while it might apply in court cases, doesn't fly in the consulting room...it's insurance fraud. Legitimate clinicans would only use 311 or 300.3 (Depression and Anxiety NOS) to push through a claim because those can be justified, and, believe me, you have to justify everything. --Mjformica 11:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with putting a POV in an entry. To the contrary, wikipedia acknowledges that some NPOV entries are made so by presenting all points of view. I appreciate you may not be all that interested in feminist thought or criticism of the therapist-as-god concept, but it is, nonethless, a position on this issue. Made, by the way, by academics who are well respected in their fields, which leads me to my next point.

Of course there isn't...I was pointing out a pitfall. --Mjformica 00:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

"Recognized authority" is a term you like to use -- A LOT. Also, "psychologist" and "Ph.D." To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, I don't think those words mean what you think they mean. Or what you want other people to think they mean. Recognized by whom? The people who write into your website www.mhsanctuary.com? I don't think the person who pointed out to you the very issue I raised above (that the term "borderline" is misused to marginalize patients therapists don't want to listen to) to whom you responded "Your BPD is showing" would agree you were an authority. OTOH, she might agree that you've proved my point.

Now I'M done. JenniSue 23:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The hair-pulling and scratching does not seem to be resulting in any improvement to the article. Huh. siafu 23:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the dose of sanity, siafu. And, JenniSue, those terms mean what they are supposed to mean and are used as such. In addition, that recognition would come from a host of professional and academic organizations, and their publications. Yet, I ask myself, why again am I defending my credentials??? --Mjformica 00:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but by presenting your credentials as a means of backing up your statements in the past, you've opened the door for them to be questioned. The credo here is verifiability, not truth. I'd suggest just leaving questions about credentials unanswered as irrelevant and stick to references and citations; its clear that such questions are not going to stop simply because they are answered. siafu 00:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You're not being rude. You are correct. And suppose those dozen pieces of paper, 3of them Ivy, on the wall of my office mean nothing anyone but me. Ego. --Mjformica 00:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Summary of edits

Trying to be bold, I made the following edits: Deleted the links to movies that don't specifically reference BPD (not sure about Bad Timing, so I left it for now); deleted a link to DBT that no longer worked; removed "manipulativeness" from the list of impulsive behaviors (I'm not disagreeing manipulativeness is a symptom of BPD; I disagree that manipulation is impulsive behavior); and cleaned up the NonBP section to indicate that the experience of a relationship with someone who has BPD is universally negative/requires therapy or extraordinary support. While this may be a common (or commonly discussed, which is different) experience, I do not believe it can be verified as universal. Also added specifics of extreme behavior (but did not include pet boiling :) )JenniSue 02:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, I took this part out:

An additional factor is that borderlines, with their irrational outbursts of anger and tendency to launch into accusatory rants at loved ones, can push even the most passive people over the edge. This often results in the borderline becoming the victim of violence, particularly in domestic situations.

People need to take responsibility for their own behavior and blaming the victim (no matter how frustrating) for domestic violence is like blaming a child for being molested. JenniSue 03:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, granted. But what about the concept of the counter-borderline. Just like the counter-dependent, those are people who get pulled into the intertia of the BP person's behavior and start to act all BP themselves. Should that be addressed somehow? It seems like a lot of the literature, like Walking on Eggshells, talks about this sort of thing. What do you think? --Seriphim 16:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

What I meant to say is that sometimes people in a borderline relationship unwhittingly bait the borderline's acting out. Like enabling. --Seriphim 16:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the term, but this has always seemed to me like the concept of the "abuse dyad" in domestic violence -- one individual has the problem (BPD or abusiveness) and the other is trying to obtain some level of control over that problem (abused women who instigate arguments just to get the beating over, for example). It sort of implies that, absent this particular relationship, everyone would be just fine when that's probably not the case. Someone with BPD is going to have BPD even if they're with someone who sets boundaries. Someone who has difficulty setting boundaries (and I say this as a poor boundary setter myself)is always going to have problems saying no and taking inappropriate responsibility even if they're with someone who isn't willing to take advantage of that. Does that make sense?JenniSue 23:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is a fair chance that, absent the BP interplay that activates the counter-BP, the counter-BP would be just fine. It's very much like the enabler who is not in an alcoholic paradigm...not opportunity, no behavior...or little behavior. --Seriphim 17:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that as there is an article on NonBP that the stub on "Effects on family members, significant others, and friends" be removed. It is related but over all it is superfluous it could be easily mentioned in a related articles section.Billyjoekoepsel 01:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, but you will get an argument from those editors who insist that the balanced POV for an article appear all on one place. --Mjformica 11:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. But I don't see this as a content issue per say. I have no opinion at all on NonBP or what the effects of BPD is on the family and loved ones of the person with this disorder. It is only a readability issue and in my opinion the deleted content belongs on another page and low and behold it already is there. So its superfluous to copy and paste it here. All we need is a link to the other article. Billyjoekoepsel 23:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice article

Dense, but informative. I added a sentence. Just take it out if you think it's no good. My 2 cents worth. But clinging to people "smothers" them; and the more you worry and mettle with things and ask "what's the matter", the worse it gets. It's the very desperation and needyness in these people that others sense, and often drives the others away. Then they are alone again, and know/feel like they smothered the relationship, and regardless of fault they blame themselves and feel more bad...take it as proof of their unworthiness (even if that's not reasonalble)... Making it harder to generate the self-esteem needed to make a relationship work and get the social support structure set up. It's a cycle. --Shadow Puppet 22:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

My edit marathon

I have taken the day to clean up the article in the hope that it will make a great Feature Article.

I have added footnotes and citations and changed to layout to slim down the lead in at the top.

If anyone has any suggestions I would appreciate it. Billyjoekoepsel 01:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Moved my comments to new bit.

I believe we could improve the readability by removing the second set of diagnostic criteria. DSM IV is more than adequate. And I will remove the inf boxes at the top as well as the section on "Effects on family members, significant others, and friends." If anyone is bothered by this please feel free to respond to me here of on my talk page. I am open to opinion on this matter. Billyjoekoepsel 16:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Too negative

Hi, would like to offer some impressions.

I realise the article will to some extent reflect psychiatric diagnostic practice which is focused only on clinically-relevant problems. But it also needs to give the wider picture of those individuals being categorised by this diagnosis. And it doesn't seem to come through enough that most of the people being described as having this disorder are people who have been abused and traumatized by others (cf statistics on childhood abuse) and are vulnerable sensitive people (i.e. not just self-harming dysfunctional manipulators) struggling to manage their boundaries, to come to terms with their experiences and emotions, and to feel safe with others.

I think the bias of the article is also given away by the references to those diagnosable with BPD as 'patients' even when not talking in the context of hospital care etc.

I realise the mentions of DSM are hyperlinked to a fuller explanation of the manual and its source, but I feel it should be mentioned alongside it in the article that this is an american and psychiatric publication.

Terms like (low or high functioning) 'Borderlines' appear to be an invalid and potentially offensive application of a specific diagnostic term referring to a mental state. That whole paragraph seems POV or based on unacknowledged psychoanalytic theory.

"people with BPD actually suffer from what has come to be called emotional dysregulation". This is just one theory.

"difficulty in functioning in a socially acceptable manner" - I view this as a judgemental statement. Accepted by some in their society might give a better sense of the relativity, but this isn't a criterion anyway.

Franzio 11:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Your criticisms aren't making much sense to me. "Accepted by some in their society" means literally the same thing as "socially acceptable", and "high functioning" and "low functioning" are common terms in mental health often determined quantitatively by means of a GAF score or other similar ranking. If you think "client" is a more neutral term than "patient", by all means replace it, of course. siafu 20:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I could have been clearer. I was really referring to the use of the term 'Borderlines'. It's jargon and misuse of a technical term - similar usages that many take offence to these days is referring to 'Schizophrenics' or 'Depressives'. Although I would also argue that if informal functional criteria are being applied, it should be specified what these are (especially when taking a simplified continuous measure of functioning and breaking it into two even more simplistic categories of low and high). 'Low Functioning Borderlines' sounds like the sort of phrase you'd find in a Nazi eugenics guide, to be honest.

My point about the use of the term 'patients' was its use more than once in a the context that had nothing to do with service use. I.E. we are talking about people here, but clearly some only think about them as clinical entities. I will change them but I was also using it to try and demonstrate the apparent biased focus of the article (but as I say I can understand it to some extent because it's following a psychiatric term).

'Socially acceptable' is a phrase with a common pejorative usage, and implies a universal unacceptability. It's the difference between saying I don't personally like something versus describing something as inherently unlikeable. It is more accurate and balanced to indicate that others in the person's society (other societies might not have such a problem) often do not understand or accept some of the behaviors of those diagnosable with BPD. Franzio

In point of fact, terms like Borderline, Depressive, Schizophrenic, etc. are jargon...however, they are professionally accepted jargon, and in common usage. As with clients versus patients, the soft sell is for the sake of the one being treated, not the treatment professional, and none of these are intended to be prejorative. One does not refer to a cancer client, or a survivor of cancer...these people are cancer patients, survivors, or remissives.

It is my opinion that the sort of position being posited by Franzio is a left over from the client-centered Rogerian nonsense (and I was trained in that nonsense, so this isn't POV) of the late 20th century.

As for client versus patient...neither one of these terms is accurate, as it assumes treatment. Good point. Properly, the phrases should be replaced with something like, "individual suffering from..." or "individual diagnosed with..." -- active verbs denote neutrality...copy editing 101. --Mjformica 11:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think calling people Borderlines or Depressives is as widely professionally acceptable as you suggest, and seems to be becoming less so. And wikipedia articles aren't just for professionals. But yes my point was that people shouldn't be referred to as patients or clients when talking generally, and we seem to agree about the neutrality issue. When referring to a diagnosis, I think 'with a diagnosis of' or 'diagnosable with' would be better and more accepted than suffering from.

Just to clarify, I'm not positing a single position, left over or otherwise, I'm trying to reasonably address issues that seem relevant. Franzio 13:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Opinions vary. Although I suspect that you will find these terms prevlaent in most professional publications.

I agree that articles are not just for professionals, I was making a point qualifying yours.

I like the revision of "suffering from"...that is a bit much. --Mjformica 03:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

OK I'll probably get stick for this but I've made a few edits throughout the article reflecting the above points. I've removed the 'failure to function consistently in a socially acceptable manner' - as I understand it this is not a recognised criterion nor an established fact so why is it there? And also removed the clearly biased/advertising references to NIMH (presumably due to the page originating from them).

I've also removed the following entire paragraph, for which there appears no factual support and much of which is, imho, clearly offensive and stigmitising.

"Borderlines can be divided into high and low functioning categories. Low functioning borderlines exhibit the well-known patterns of self-mutilation, dipsomania, drug abuse and so forth. High functioning bordelines are often perceived as being extremely charming and even exotic. High-functioning borderline women have a special power to captivate men, even when these women are not particularly good looking, because of their ability to mimic the behavior and interests of the man. High-functioning borderlines pay a steep price for bending themselves to the personalities of their mates. Tension within the borderline rises and breaks out in what appears a childish and unprovoked affirmation of the borderline's true personality. To reestablish her sense of self the borderline then begins to devalue her mate and developes grandiose ideas of her capabilities. Female borderlines often feel they have a mystical mission in the world and it has been speculated that oracles in the ancient world may have been drawn from borderlines. "

Franzio 15:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The above paragraph has now been reinserted as accurate "now that citations have been found". The single link added at the bottom is to this transcript of a radio interview: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/mind/stories/s1244802.htm. Please could it be specified how this substantiates the above paragraph, in terms of the nature of the source, and why those points amongst the huge number of claims made amidst the play and book promotion.

"Glenn Close’s chillingly accurate portrayal of the borderline personality" - How disappointing that the professionals on this programme did not challenge this pathetic and harmful statement by the presenter. Unless I've missed the work on BPD and kidnapping children, boiling pet rabbits and attempted murder. Franzio 09:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I myself could attest to attempted murder and kidnapping children as not unknown, though not specifically, borderline behavior (could, if not legally bound not to). As mentioned above, boiling pet rabbits is kind of specific, but certainly not beyond the realm of possibility. siafu 14:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

From my personal patient files, I've got a diagnosed BP who shot the neighbors dog (between the eyes, in front of the kids) for barking; another who killed his girlfriend's cat because she "wasn't in the mood"; I do have flushed goldfish, not boiled; unprovoked assaults; stalking; attempted murder with a motor vehicle; backing over the SO's children with a car (none were hurt, physically); slashed tires; planted child porn at work...the list goes on. In addition, I have had a one female BP patient who makes Glenn Close's "chillingly accurate portrayal" look like storytime. These, however, are all protraits of the violent BP. The demure BP is a whole other ballgame, and no where near as destructive to others -- they just destroy themselves. --Sadhaka 18:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps to try and make this less polarized, I could suggest it is as much the wording of that paragraph as some of what it is trying to get across. I don't wish to deny that some of it may partially relate to some accepted evidence applicable to some of the many varied and individual people meeting criteria for BPD at some time (usually young women, following abuse or trauma during childhood).

'Individuals meeting criteria for BPD vary in the level at which they are perceived to function socially or occupationally. High functioning may involve greater than usual willingness and ability to adapt to others, in order to achieve acceptance, intimacy or perceived safety. This often appears unsustainable, however, such that stress and emotional turmoil may increase to a point that some or all involved cannot manage or do not accept, and the relationship may end. The individual with a diagnosis of BPD may no longer see the other person in the previously idealised way, and may affirm their own value and worth."

I'm not trying to say this is perfect or necessarily supported by proper citations or whatever, but trying to be clear about what I'm objecting to. I don't think Wikipedia should be making sweeping statements demeaning millions of people as that original paragraph does. Franzio 09:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I didn't write the paragraph in question, but I'm the one who found citations supporting it and therefore restored the text after deletion. It is in in no way my goal to portray those with BPD negatively, but it's also not my goal to whitewash the facts. I think the paragraph as it stands is fair and accurate, and frankly, I'm not quite sure what you object to. Alienus 16:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I just want to say I have no desire to paint over, just to defend against what I feel would seem more like prejudice in other settings, as someone else now seems to have done below. To Sadhaka's comments above, which were posted after my text after it, I would just say that of course I don't dispute that incidents like this occur in relation to BPD, but personally selected case study anecdotes aren't a good foundation for labels and stereotypes, which if to be used at all (rather than only mentioned as a usage by some) surely require comprehensive balanced statistics, and research properly addressing the parties involved, the personal and social context, and distinguishing causes and correlates. Franzio 13:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

And I have no desire to make the text unbalanced and nonfactual, so I'm working with Sadhaka to improve that section. My main concern is that, however badly done it was, the original had some parts that deserve to survive in one form or another. Alienus 14:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Commentary on content inaccuracy...line by line

Borderlines can be divided into high and low functioning categories.

*Referring to BPs as "Borderlines" is considered non-PC in a public forum. Although it is a term still used casually by most medical professionals, it's kinda like the way our esteemed African American brethen use the N-bomb.

*The use of high-functioning and low functioning here is inaccurate. What the nominclature of hi/lo function refers to is the Global Assessment of Functioning as outlined in the DSM. It does not refer to the actual behaviors associated with social functioning, as suggested here.

Low functioning borderlines exhibit the well-know patterns of self-mutilation, dipsomania, drug abuse and so forth.

*Re: low function, see above. "Well-known" is a POV qualifier and discounts the differentiation between a "demure" BP and a "violent" BP. A demure BP can be a self-mutilating drug addict who holds down a 6 figure job and has a GAF of 90-100, and you may never know.

High functioning bordelines are often perceived as being extremely charming and even exotic.

*This is not a perception, but a consistent character profile. Further, low functioning BPs can be quite the same. POV, me thinks. At the least, gross generalization.

High-functioning borderline women have a special power to captivate men, even when these women are not particularly good looking, because of their ability to mimic the behavior and interests of the man.

*Oh, my goodness, kids. If this is not POV, sexist, and just plain chauvanistic locker room BS, I am the uncle of the monkey in question.

High-functioning borderlines pay a steep price for bending themselves to the personalities of their mates. Tension within the borderline rises and breaks out in what appears a childish and unprovoked affirmation of the borderline's true personality. To reestablish her sense of self the borderline then begins to devalue her mate and developes grandiose ideas of her capabilities. Female borderlines often feel they have a mystical mission in the world and it has been speculated that oracles in the ancient world may have been drawn from borderlines.

*Not a shred of clinical reality here. Anecdotal, yes. Clinical, no. Primarily because, in addition to BPs, you are talking about Bi-Ps, grandiose MDs, (not medical doctors), co-dependent characters, counter-dependent characters, narcisstic passive-aggressives, and even demure sociopaths, etc. This, again, is a gross generalization, and one that might be considered a bit more than slightly non-PC by the spiritualists, mystics, religious, and pagans in the readership. Oh, and I note, "speculated"!!!

As a "High-Functioning Borderline woman" I have lived this behavior, and this behavior has caused the said effects. II can Not say that the speculation is correct, however, to date for me this disorder and not understanding until recently has caused me and many others a great deal of grief. This article has been one of the better ones that I used to help others understand me. It could use a little more, they all could, it's a good article.

C'mon, you guys...there isn't even a conversation here, other than the one you'd have with a monsterously self-important, and intellectually over-compensatory college sophomore over one too many beers during finals week.

There is a considerable amount of anecdotally referential, grossly generalized, and, in some cases, downright implausible positionality and misinformation in this article. That is my POV. We're a bunch of smart folks. I suspect we can do better all the way around. Cheers! --Sadhaka 18:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC) ^{Talk to me}

Ok, so given all this, how would you improve this content? Alienus 18:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping you might take a stab at improving the paragraph. If you tell me you don't want to try, then I'll make an attempt, myself, working from your suggestions. I'd also like to see if some mention of "demure" vs. "violent" can be made. What do you think? Alienus 02:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to thrown in. That's what we're here for, yes? This is one of the articles that I haven't put any energy into, so, let me take a few days to look at it, and I will put some thoughts down...big changes here, little one's within the article. Cheers! --Sadhaka 11:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC) ^{Talk to me}

PS - "demure" versus "violent" is language. I'm not certain I can find a source for it, other than it's common diagnostic usage, but I'll try. --Sadhaka 11:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll step back and let you hack at it. Alienus 20:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

No stepping back. Have at it, boy!!! --Sadhaka 14:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

As I see it, we have two options. We could continue to play hot potato and nothing will change. Or we could work together in here to figure out what that part of the article would look like. I suggest the latter.

I noticed that you included the following comment: "This is not a perception, but a consistent character profile." Ok, fair enough. How exactly would you characterize this aspect of the BP character profile (without devolving "into POV, sexist, and just plain chauvanistic locker room BS"? Alienus 18:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not playing hot potato...just busy. I'd be delighted to collaborate.

Re: your query...BPs have really, really, really, really lousy boundaries. What happens is, this aspect of character, combined with the fundamental need to be loved and looked after that we all carry around, often creates a perception on our part (that'd be the nonBP, by the way) that the BP is "the most amazing person I've ever met", "the most incredible lover I've ever encountered", "the smartest business partner one could hope for", "the best..." at everything. It's a mind job created and perpetuated by our own fundamental human frailties. The BP overwhelms you with his/her personality, emotional availability, sexual intensity, etc., and, by the time you figure out that you're up to your armpits in quicksand, s/he's standing on the bank going, "Don't look at me -- it's your fault that you got into this mess!" --Sadhaka 22:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Now that's a lot of good stuff to work from! Here's a quick first draft of what may wind up as a replacement for the disputed paragraph:

As a consequence of difficulties in maintaining some social and emotional boundaries, often due to a particularly strong need for reassurance and love, people with BPD can sometimes make seemingly rapid and deep connections with others, marked by mutual admiration. When very open and vulnerable, people with BPD can sometimes overwhelm others, for example due to strong emotions, admiration or sexual intensity. They can also be taken advantage of by others. However, due to the inherent instability of such relationships and unresolved issues for the person with BPD, the person with BPD is prone to reverse a sometimes over-positive view, sometimes due to perceived issues of trust which others can see as slight. This can be experienced as unexpected hostility or betrayal by others, and can also be confusing and painful for the person with BPD.

It's a bit overwritten, and I have to be careful not to repeat material already covered in this section. Also, keep in mind that, regardless of any research on my part, my own exposure to BP is second-hand and limited to non-clinical interactions, so if I'm saying anything that's misleading or just plain wrong, please don't hestitate to correct me. Alienus 22:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Politically-correct circumlocution of the original controversial bit, with added POV ('first impression', 'unhappy in their...', 'betrayal'). I prefer the directness of the original (which also happens to be 100% correct in my experience) but if it has to be changed, I'd rather it was removed entirely. CalG 23:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not the least bit helpful. The original is out, so we're trying to replace it. Removing it means losing information, and I see no reason to do that. Alienus 20:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally I feel that revised paragraph is going in the right direction. I still feel it prioritises the perspective and hurt of others over those of the person with BPD, perhaps, and some statements are still too sweeping or extreme, when they probably only apply to a proportion or only apply to some extent or in some areas at some times. I don't have specific amendments just now but wanted to support this aim. Franzio 10:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

These are reasonable an helpful comments.

I think you're right that the paragraph as it stands is more about how the behavior of borderlines affects others than about the symptoms of BPD from the POV of the person who has it. To some extent, this may not be avoidable, in that it's trying to explain how to recognize BPD through one of its typical consequences. Having said that, you may be right that about changing te perspective a bit to focus more on the borderline. Not sure yet just how to do that, but I'll try again.

It might help if you could point out which aspects were too sweeping or extreme so I could tone them down. Like I said, it's a bit overwritten now, so there's definitely room to qualify and limit statements that are overly broad.

Thanks for helping. Alienus 20:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Alienus, I've gone ahead and made some edits to it, was struggling to elucidate exactly what I meant otherwise. They're just my suggestions to be changed or edited again or whatever. Franzio 10:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm liking what you guys are doing here. --Sadhaka 12:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the bit about childishly snapping due to tension from reflecting someone else, that sounds like speculation. Also I can't believe that 'true personality' is a concept in psychology rather than a bitchy comment. CalG 14:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

OK apologies in advance if anyone feels I've jumped the gun on this, but I've replaced the original paragraph with the one we discussed above, with some very minor amendments. Seems to make sense to edit it there rather than here. The only thing is that it now appears to repeat quite a lot of what is already in the article just above it, so I guess they need merging Franzio 19:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you jumped the gun, but I wasn't around. On the one hand, the version you went with corrects many of the flaws in the draft I offered. On the other, I think it goes too far in its effort to water down the content.

I made some fairly minor changes, removing redundancy, tightening up the text and restoring a few key phrases. Still, I'm not happy with it. The whole point of the draft was that it focused on rubber-banding as opposed to mere instability, but now I'm not sure if it has a focus at all. Instead, it has an excess of overlap with the paragraph above it that starts with "People with BPD often".

What I'm trying to get at here is that, in addition to stormy long-term relationships, those with BPD sometimes have a tendency to jump head-first into a short-term relationship that quickly explodes. From the perspective of the borderline, a person goes from stranger to best friend to worst enemy, all in the span of months or even weeks.

From what I understand, this sort of thing is particularly characteristic of BPD, so it's worth mentioning in the section on symptoms. For that matter, it may even offer insight to those who've been on the receiving end of this situation, though that's not a primary goal.

At this point, any further feedback would be welcome. I'm going to consider this paragraph further and see if anything more can be done for it. Alienus 10:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, sorry again if I did jump the gun, and really I just thought might as well edit it within the page rather than here. I would say again that I do'nt believe in watering down, if things are the case then they are the case, but I did want to work on the balance and focus, and I don't personally disagree with any of what you've just said. Franzio 16:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC) (escept for possibly the use of phrase 'the borderline' but each to their own)

To be very clear, you have nothing to apologize for and I take no offence at your initiative. I also don't think you were intentionally watering down the paragraph; by and large, your changes were positive and I've kept most of them. The use of "the borderline" in the place of phrases like "the person with BPD" was less a matter of psychology than it was English; long phrases get heavy when repeated. I realize, however, that some of the shortening might be offensive, so if you can think of a better way, I'm all for it. Alienus 21:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Merging NonBP

I have just merged the NonBP article. This was discussed before Christmas and no objections were raised. "NonBP" is contentious, agenda driven, as POV as it gets and not-terribly-scientific original research. To borrow from Sadhaka "anecdotally referential, grossly generalized, and, in some cases, downright implausible positionality and misinformation" seems to cover it well!

However NonBP exists, it isn't going away yet, but an article of it's own is far too POV for Wikipedia, so the solution seems to be to merge it here.

It's late, I'm tired, I just merged the existing text for now, and deleted a duplicate link, I don't necessarily like the existing text very much and certainly intend to tweak it over the weekend, and hope others will too --Zeraeph 00:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

NonBP is not so much POV, as it is non-clinical terminology. By moving the nonBP section back to the BP page, it revisits a long-standing Wiki-controversy, not on the topic, but on the placement of the information.

Further, nonBP is poor nominclature (the whole thing should be referred to as counter-Borderline (my POV), in keeping with the colloquial prerogative of counter-Dependent, counter-addiction (aka agency), etc. The term was coined by one source, Stop Walking on Eggshells, and that is original, undocumented "research", so you've got a point. The problem here is that it is a concept that has made its way into the BP population, and its satellite relationships. When a suggestion was made to get rid of the topic altogether, it raised quite the ruckus, as I recall.

The counter-point (hah!) is that Al-Anon and Al-A-Teen, etc. exist for a reason. Just because it's new, doesn't make it illegitimate. And like the agent, or the counter-Dependent, the counter-Borderline, is a real, and demonstrable socio-characterological style. I don't believe that it can't be measured, I suspect it's just that no one has yet taken the time. Dissertation topic anyone? --Sadhaka 11:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

"Worthless Creep" (and synonyms) is "non clinical terminology", in common (and often very valid and therapeutic) useage, but it doesn't have it's own article.

Seriously, you can't validate every *theory* any journo or PR person publishes, on the grounds that some day somebody might do some valid research and discover *A* syndrome afflicting the same population, that will probably have vastly different characteristics to the sensationalist version. One of the (many) reasons we have a psychiatric and academic community is to prevent our psyches being defined by amateurs bent upon playing to the resentments of the accusers and the insecurities of the accused.

"Counter Borderline" sounds much better to me too, and when you have researched it, got it accepted by the psychiatric and academic communities, and a few other people write dissertations about it so it isn't original research, it will deserve an article. I am sure there is a "counter syndrome" to most PDs (except perhaps Schizoid? ;o) ) waiting to be identified and defined by disciplined experts. But NonBP, as it stands, and is commonly used, is so biased as a concept as to come close to "incitement to hatred" at times and, to many people, shares the same special relationship with prejudice as another infamous "n" word.

Some original research sneaks into Wikipedia under "popular useage" but NOT when the original research is soley populist and sensationalist (think what THAT predecent would do to other articles???).

My gut feeling is that NonBP doesn't belong on Wikipedia in any form AT ALL. But for now, giving it a mention on the BP page seems like a possible compromise? The other alternative would be to have a NonBP article that also incorporated the opposing point of view in equal measure, which would ALSO have to be "original research". But hey, once you let in one kind you can't block the opposition? Right?

Seems to me a more civilised solution, if it has to be mentioned AT ALL, is to just place it alongside the real information? That way (at least when it is at it's best) people seeking definition of NonBP will come to the real information, which, of course, will require a few impartial words on the subject to define the term and explain to them why they have landed there. --Zeraeph 18:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Z - what do you see as at issue with the content as it is. It's dry, but it's mostly straight definitions. Cheers! --Sadhaka 11:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It's pragmatically stated for a concept that isn't remotely academically accredited. Anyone new to the topic might assume it's all formally recognised. Also, all those headings give it more visual importance than it is due. It should be stated as the unaccredited, minority view that it is. The old deleted version is informal enough but as POV as it gets. Pity really...

What say you have a tweak and I have a tweak with a strict "no hard feelings for reversion" policy between us? See if we can make it (scrupulously objectively) realistic and balanced? --Zeraeph 18:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Having a little tweak here. What in the WORLD does "the inertia of the disorder" mean, particularly in that context? Does it mean anything rational, applicable or recogniseable AT ALL? I would have thought "inertia" was a term singularly inapplicable to BPD? Thoughts?

Found loads of unnecessary repetitions in so little text, opinion presented as established fact and obscure waffle, trimmed it all, now hopefully you can flesh it out a little. I am not sure the points made at present are the most significant aspects of the phenomenon anyway. I would imagine "trans" and "counter" reactions occur to pretty much any relationship with traumatic aspects...wondering if there is an even simpler, clearer way to express this?

I am not even sure if sources exist for the points currently being made? Any enlightenment to offer? --Zeraeph 20:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Zeraeph: "My gut feeling is that NonBP doesn't belong on Wikipedia in any form AT ALL."

I want to put in a strong vote for keeping it. I really don't care whether it has its own article or not but I do think that it should be mentioned.

As someone who has lived with a BP, finding information about the turmoil that suddenly infiltrates your life is daunting. Anything that can be done to guide a NonBP in the right direction would be a true and positive social service.--gargoyle888 23:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

But don't you think you need valid information, not wildy inaccurate, agenda driven, PR hype? --Zeraeph 00:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both your conclusion and your recitation of facts: Information about NonBP's is all too frequently "wildy inaccurate, agenda driven, PR hype." I hope that some valid information exists that can be referenced or included here. But even if it doesn't, I'm going to say that some solid statement to the effect that BP has a profound influence on the lives of the people around really should be included with links to NonBP resources on the Net.

I think that people who are in a relationship with a BP are quite likely to find Wikipedia in hopes that it can shed some light on their situation. Any information is better than none.

I'm not even pretending to help here, but I'll offer that of all the support groups for psychosis or neurosis that I've Fight Club tourist leeched my way around, nonBPs are by far the most obnoxious, whiney, needy, emotionally abject, simpleminded trollable bastards of the lot. I'm pretty sure they're ill. Okay, carry on. CalG 02:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Cal's right. gargoyle's right. And Zeraeph's right. And the article is right...it's just not documented. I'll see what I can dig up in "legitimate" source references to support the characterization -- or refute it -- as something that Wikipedia should be, at least via perception, portending to legitimize. It's not like I have a day job or anything. Cheers! --Sadhaka 14:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC) ^{Talk to me}

Oh ME LIKEY...ME LIKEY LOTS! ;o) And I never thought I'd say THAT about anything even mildly related to the concept "nonbp". Which is why I couldn't do much myself, I am just too polarised, I'd either tout my own POV, or overcorrect, without realising, either a BIG BAD :o(. Naturally my spontaneous approval of this edit will lead me to defend it with my life if needs be. --Zeraeph 17:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

While I appreciate the effort that's gone into producing this nonBP section, the amount of space spent discussing it implies that it's as vigorously researched and widely supported as the diagnosis of BPD. The other implication is like people with BPD, in addition to being pretty unsympathetically treated in the article, go around spreading dysfunction to others. There's a difference between what Gargoyle wants -- a listing of resources for people who care for those with BPD -- and this whole long POV discussion about nonBPs. You don't see a discussion on the entry about Alzheimers with some long diatribe about how living with someone with dementia can make you feel crazy sometimes.

Also, if you get a significant part of your identity from the psychiatric disorder your partner/parent/sibling/ex has, what does that say about your boundaries? As near as I can tell, all of this counter-, trans- etc. business aside, people dealing with someone with BPD are divided into three groups: 1) People who care about a person with BPD but are willing to set boundaries, up to and including ending the relationship, to protect themselves and others. 2) People who want to help or fix a person with BPD, who have convinced themselves that THEY alone have the committment, love, whatever, to make the BPD go away. 3) People who seek out relationships with those whom they perceive as weaker (because of mental illness, a history of abuse, physical problems) in the hopes of exploiting that weakness for their own gain. Or, if you like, healthy people, rescuers and sick bastards.

The nonBP websites out there seem to be from disillusioned Group 2 people. Most of these folks are nonprofessionals making a diagnosis in retrospect about an ex, a family member, etc. They talk about people who, in their opinion, "behave like BPs" or "have BP traits." (Hello? All of us have one or two BP traits at some point in our lives!) And if you read their stories, they're not talking about a distressed person who creates chaos and distress in others, they're talking about people (often men, which is another red flag) who ENJOY creating chaos and distress in the lives of others. That's abuse, not mental illness. Moreover, I am struck by the almost compulsive need some of these webhosters have to "diagnose" BPD in fictional characters, celebrities, even people they've never met. Case in point: Helens World of 1000 BPD Resources (or whatever it's called). On her site, she links to another -- "Things My Girlfriend And I Have Fought About" -- and describes it as the funny side of living with someone with BPD. Except that site (run by Mil Millington) is NOT about a woman with BPD (although it is hysterically funny). It's about a man and his girlfriend who live in England and fight about everything. This overidentification (which I think is just another symptom of codependency) is a big reason I think the mention of the concept of nonBPs should be brief, with a few links if necessary. JenniSue 23:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Find me research on co-dependence that supports Melanie Beattie's original characterization of this interactive style, and I will agree that this section should be reduced, or even excised. Until then, it remains as legitimate and viable a characterization as that one.

This, "Also, if you get a significant part of your identity from the psychiatric disorder your partner/parent/sibling/ex has, what does that say about your boundaries?" is exactly the point. Al-anon exists for a reason -- it's not because you live with an alcoholic, it's because you exist as a component of an alcholic system. I don't mean to lecture, JS, but you should know better.

I don't think we should be relying on other websites for our point of reference. What's next, myspace.com?

Also, this "healthy people, rescuers and sick bastards" is wholly inappropriate, uncalled for, violates Wiki-policy (b*st*rd in this context) and, aside from being crass and pedestrian, beneath you. Breathe! --Sadhaka 11:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I should point out WHY I like the section as it stands?

"NonBP", as it currently exists, as an agenda, has about as much credibility with me as the KKK, for remarkably similar reasons. Scratch the surface and there is a lot of bigotry, incitement to hatred and "masterplans for the destruction of real human beings".

I think one of the parts I find most shocking is that the NonBP agenda cunningly twists matters so the BPD (which is most frequently caused by abuse) becomes synonymous with factitious abuse claims. That is a truly cruel artificially created "catch 22" for the abused.

The bottom line, however, is exploitation, NOT of Borderlines (they are, apparently, just objects to be demonised and abused), but of the partners of Borderlines.

For WHATEVER reason (and it's not likely to be 100% healthy) these are drawn from people who are in distress due to their relationship with someone they perceive to have BPD (because they are actively encouraged to self diagnose their partners). Now that distress could have anything in a whole spectrum of origins from "Not getting their own way and WANTING IT BAD" to "being in partial denial that their partner is a stone psychopath", and every shade in between. The NonBP agenda aims to please, and exploit 'em all.

No matter how true, or how much we can prove, we cannot say that on Wikipedia. It's original research. We can't pretend NonBP doesn't exist, because people come looking for it and if they don't find it, sooner or later, set up a seperate article giving it EVEN MORE credibility.

Seems to me, what Sadhaka has done is actually very clever. He has described the only aspect of NonBP that has any valid existance and then gone on to relate it to co-dependency in general. He has give good, solid, objective information for all those "NonBPs" who are in the innocent middle range ie, averagely screwed up people (just like you, me and the dog), who are trying to find a little help and understanding of the difficulties in their particular relationship.

If they listen to Sadhaka, they are going to be just a LITTLE less likely to be drawn into the NonBP agenda, and a LITTLE more likely to be receptive to common sense. That has to be a good thing, and IMHO it's the best you can do whilst retaining objectivity--Zeraeph 11:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

So...I just got funded to do a study to QUANTIFY (read:profile) the NonBP character. I'm in the process of developing a demographic and relational survey questionnaire, and then I have to figure out what the heel to do after that. Cheers! --Sadhaka 12:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

So, that deals you out of here..."original research"...I'll be interested to see what you come up with elsewhere though, I am hoping for something a lot less agenda driven and inclined to incite to hatred than the existing cobblers, but that depends a hell of a lot on who is doing the funding --Zeraeph 15:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It's only OR if it's unpublished. Alienus 15:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Mode Therapy

Another relatively recent and exciting development is a variation on Jeffrey Young's 'Schema Therapy', entitled 'Mode Therapy'. Details can be obtained from his book.

If this is notable, it might help to briefly explain what kind of therapy this is. --65.25.217.79 20:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Abusive partnerships, "wifebeating syndrome"

Why isn't there information on how BPD seems to correlate with the typical "wifebeater" type, complete with paranoid jealousy, being a control freak and abusing the hell out of the rest of the family? It's often the same thing, especially with male sufferers and is mentioned in various sources. I'd hate it if this aspect was completely ignored.--Snowgrouse 21:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Some researchers have called antisocial personality the (often male) flipside of borderline Cas Liber 11:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Risk Factor heading

Hi all, a risk factor is what predates a condition. eg. A risk factor for cancer is smoking etc. Under the heading on the page should be something predisposing to BPD, not the other way around. The section under the heading should be under something like 'Adverse Outcomes' or 'Risks of BPD' or 'BPD and Suicide' or something. Some folk have put alot of wokr into the page so I didn't want to hop in and change stuff :) Cas Liber 12:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

One or both of these statistics is wrong

If 2% of adults have BPD and 8-10% of those commit suicide, that means the cause of death for 0.2% of American adults is suicide resulting from BPD. This is absurd. See here for WHO's suicide rates in the population. --68.100.254.244 18:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Novel and Research

At present I'm writing a novel with a central character who has BPD. While not claiming to be an expert on the subject, I'd like to contribute to this discussion, albeit after I've entered the final stages of my story.

GeelinGeelin 02:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Most traits exhibited by people with BPD are present in many people without a clinical condition. eg. For Black & White thinking see how most people think about politics or sport! People under stress can behave in all sorts of bizarre regressed ways. The best thing to do is to talk to an expert (i.e. see someone who specializes in this area). Anyway, if milder, the main focus will be on what areas of yuor life or things about you you want to change or improve rather than utilising the category.

WRT writing a book, I would think there'd be a few chat groups with people who suffer teh condition who'd be glad to help out. However, be clear about what you need and how you ask - emails can be tricky and alot of this is fairly sensitive.

Good luck Cas Liber 04:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Cas. I'd love to attend a supporters'/recovery group, to see what it's like for survivors and those struggling with their 'boderline proclivities', for want of a better phrase. My novel though is actually about a man who is in seclusion; given my reading and understanding of BPD, I think it's very likely that people who cut themselves off share many things in common with BPDs and may in fact be BPDs. That doesn't mean that recluses are always BPDs or vice versa, but it's an interesting like that I'm seeking to explore. Unfortunately there isn't much info on seclusion (as far as I can tell) but the BPD stuff I've been reading is fascinating. Cheerz. Geelin 08:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I would encourage everyone to assist Geelin - he's a good researcher and can contribute a lot to our site. Welcome Geelin! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious. What do you mean by seclusion? Someone who has become a hermit and lives isolated somewhere, someone who has been placed in seclusion in a mental hospital or prison? Many people with cluster B traits (histrionic/antisocial/borderline/narcissistic) overlap, if that helps with character building. Cas Liber 20:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, it's about a hermit who also has BPD. He's bordered himself up in his house because he's been so scarred and hurt by the rejection of others; the pain of others' has led him to live entirely alone, and yet he still strongly craves relationships. I'm interested in investigating the histrionic/antisocial/borderline/narcissistic overlap  :) Geelin 13:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I just had a look at the article on Avoidant personality disorder, and I think my central chraracter is more likely to be that than BPD. I do think he has some BPD in him, but he's predominantly AvD. He's definately doesn't have Histrionic personality disorder traits, except maybe sensitivity to criticism. I was also thinking that Hikikomori are verging into AvPD; my main character is very much of the Hikikomori variety, but AvD is a more accurate diagnosis, I think. Hmmm..... - Geelin 14:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of NPOV tag

According to the history an anon has added the NPOV tag. Can I ask why? For the time being I have removed it until an explanation can be given. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Because of paragraphs such as this:

Victims of this disorder may be very intelligent, loving people with strong personalities in terms of holding opinions and defending their ideas, but their self-image is damaged and they seek fulfilment sometimes in very bad environments.

At least a few were thankfully removed:

The death of a victim of BPD (most often a young person) by their own hand due to inadequate diagnosis and care is a tragedy of incomprehensible proportions209.169.114.213

BPD Seminar at the Uni of Sydney

Apparently, there is a one-day seminar on BPD at the uni of Sydney on December 2. The cost is $125, including food.

To find out more, go to this website: [1]

Cheers, Geelin 02:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Looked at the outline. May be a fair starting point. Not usre about the 'most common personality disorder' bit in the blurb that goes with it, certainly the most common one which turns up in mental health but that is because of associated behaviours. Cas Liber 02:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Replaced NonBP Material Removed by 69.183.55.120

The editor (69.183.55.120) gave no reference to check the veracity of his claim that this material is protected by copyright. Since that section was the work of several people who have contributed here on Wikipedia, it is quite unlikely that one person holds the copyright to the material. It appears that the only edit the IP has ever made on Wikipedia is the removal of the NonBP section so I'm claiming that it was vandalism and replacing it. I haven't reverted any subsequent changes to the article. gargoyle888 02:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, the person who actually wrote the bulk that section would be aware of copyright and potential copyright issues and, writing it, as they did, specifically FOR Wikipedia, (whilst in a virtual half nelson applied to encourage them to write it ;o) ) wouldn't have a reason in the wide world to copyright it. --Zeraeph 17:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

And, just for the record, the section has virtually not changed at all since I did write it, certainly not in core content and/or from from the standpoint of intellectual property. And, Z, the book deal does give me every reason in the world to copyright it. It's intellectual property at this point, and, although I am the one who contributed it, I am, again, removing it, until it can be properly referenced after the book is published. -- Sadahaka

Well if People would TELL people stuff

...then they would know it...wouldn't they?

Except, unfortunately, you are WRONG about this, because by making the contribution, the original author agrees to licence under GFDL (as you will see when you go to make incensed reply...just under bottom right of reply box) thus [2]. In plain speech, when you posted it here, you signed away the copyright. If you object you can sort it out here WP:CP --Zeraeph 13:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Great Z, thanks for reverting. Only one minor nit to pick: He didn't "Sign away the copyright." I believe that he still retains the copyright as it is defined in the GFDL. As recipients of this GFDL copyrighted work we are free to post it to Wikipedia, since it is obvious that such posting is well contemplated within the GFDL license. At this point, any wholesale removal of the text just amounts to vandalism.

If anyone is up to rewriting the text to avoid a pizzing contest, that might not be such a bad idea. -gargoyle888 14:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Curious thing though, as far as he actually claimed at the time, he wrote the Wikipedia stuff just for this article originally, which he THEN seems to have added to a book, which isn't published yet...no IDEA where THAT leaves the copyright, I don't think there IS such a thing as "retrospective copyright"?

Actually Sadhaka is one of the best Psych editors ever, but sometimes, on a more human level, he doesn't quite manage to sustain the same high standard. Between the lines I'd say there is some online psych politic involved. Might be an idea to reword it to save trouble? --Zeraeph 21:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I must admit, I have never heard anything called non-BPD discussed anywhere in mental health in Australia. It may be a valid theory but I don't think it has gained broad acceptance anywhere. I was pondering whether it should be somewhere else.Cas Liber 20:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah it's lunatic fringe and agenda driven, stuff, but Sadhaka got himself prodded into posting something half sensible about it. Which is the best anyone can really do. --Zeraeph 21:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Z, thanks for the compliment...I think. I spoke with legal at the Guilford Press, and you can keep it, as is. It's a question of intellectual property...not words. I was incorrect to assume the two were the same. And I did write the piece specifically for Wikipedia. The concept is what included in the publication...not the piece itself.

As for Cas Liber's comment...of course you haven't, hence, the need for the book. It's a colloquialism that was wended its way into the lexicon, and needs to be addressed. For some odd reason, I got elected.

Finally, Z, kindly refrain from speaking about me in the third person as if I'm not reading this, and making editorial comments in the process. It's insulting, and incredibly passive-aggressive. Frankly, it's beneath you. Sadhaka

But not, apparently, beneath you, S? ;o) How am I supposed to know you are around if you don't reply to personal messages? *sighs* My Psychic Powers perhaps? I was actually going to email you somehow about this if you didn't respond soon...

On a serious note, if you are hellbent on writing the new "Walking on Eggshells" I have all my digits crossed that the book will retain the same high standard of integrity, impartiality and factuality as any of your namespace edits, that I am aware of, and not even look, let alone stoop, downwards to the level of all that has gone before on that and associated topics...that, once being realised...break a leg, as they say. :o) AS I said above, something half sensible about the topic is the best anyone can really do... --Zeraeph 15:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sadhaka, the point I am making is that I work in mental health and am aware of much of what is written and have not sen the concept mentioned anywhere but here. Apart from being in a book, has the NonBPD concept been referenced in a peer reviewed journal? cheers Cas Liber 22:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Famous people with BPD

Can anyone verify that the named people in the "Famous Borderline Personalities" section in the article are, in fact, so ? I put in Susanna Kaysen, the author of Girl, Interrupted because that is the defining aspect and controversy of her book. But the others I am not sure of at all, having not put them in. Some I checked, like Livia Soprano and Glen Close's character in Fatal Attraction seemed valid. But I have no easy way of knowing about the others. Except drilling down bio databases and hoping they are accurate. Shouldn't it be limited to people who have declared their BPD ? Should they be kept in the article until verified ? Thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 18:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I heartily second that! I have doubts about a lot of these, and that it can simply be argued that these people/characters show(ed) traits of BPD doesn't seem convincing enough to include them in this section. --Miss Dark 03:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I boldly removed this entire section. I think it's reckless and inappropriate to mention people who may exhibit borderline traits. --70.127.140.156 02:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

In a published book that is openly available to the reading public (New Hope For People With Borderline Personality Disorder" (2002) by Neil R Bokian et. al., Three Rivers Press), former Princess Diana, Marilyn Munro, and the American comedian Doug Ferrari are all considered borderline. The latter has openly confessed to being Borderline. - Geelin 11:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi all. Interesting. Is there anything, in principle, plausibly wrong with having at least the fictional characters from movies, etc. It might help people understand the type. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 14:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC) (User talk:Wikiklrsc)

I have thought about it and discussed it a lot. There appears to be some merit in having the "famous people with BPD" section --- in terms of identification of behaviour and traits, let alone making the diagnosis more tolerable for people who have it. At the very least we should have the fictional character in the movies and TV listed as far as I can see. I will do it if no one can sensibly object. Best Wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 17:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC) (User talk:Wikiklrsc)

I think that if a character has actually been diagnosed with BPD -- or if a person him- or herself has claimed to have BPD -- then it should be harmless to put them in a section like this. There should be a line drawn at speculation. So, to comment on what Geelin said, Doug Ferrari would be fine, and Susanna Kaysen would also be perfectly acceptable for that matter. For people like Marilyn Monroe, though, I don't know what the protocol would be normally for what is essentially a rumor (published or not). Include it with a link to that reference, making it clear that it's only been argued? --Miss Dark 19:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with your point of view, Miss Dark. Thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 19:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, confer BPD resources about famous people and movie characters: [3] ... and notice the 2001 book: "Living in the Dead Zone: Janis Joplin and Jim Morrison: Understanding Borderline Personality Disorders" by Gerald A. Faris, Ralph M. Faris. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 20:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Making diagnoses of famous and deceased people, in regards to their personality or personality disorders, is something that we can do, to some extent. If we know enough about the person and what they were like in their relationships, you can make educated guesses. My counsellor told me that when he studied psych at uni, Marilyn M was often used as a classic example of borderline, given what people knew of her.

Hitler and Kim Jong-Il (North Korea) would classicly fit the profile of a narcissist and possibly even a paranoid personality. Stalin was paranoid to a tee. I've read quite a few books on Hitler (memoirs of his ministers, biographies, etc) and they all support evidence of a narcissistic personaltiy. So I don't think it's that impossible to look at a person, posthumously, and diagnose their personality. If a doctor can hazard a medical guess as to what disease a person had which caused their death, then we can similarly look at a person (retrospectively) and guess their personality; with historical information like journals, recollections of family and friends, recorded interviews, etc we can make our own conclusions.

I was thinking today even that King Saul in the Bible may have been manic or even borderline. It's a big stretch, and one that I won't argue too far, but his behaviour and cognitive thinking and affective states all fit that profile. Anyway, they're just my thoughts. Geelin 12:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with some of your points, Geelin, but not this one: If a doctor can hazard a medical guess as to what disease a person had which caused their death, then we can similarly look at a person (retrospectively) and guess their personality. A doctor has the authority and training to diagnose a disease; if we as laymen hazard a guess, we're just speculating. I'm just saying I question the appropriateness of putting our guesses on Wikipedia. --Miss Dark 00:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent points, Geelin. Thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 13:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC) (User talk:Wikiklrsc)

I think this page presents great guidelines for creating a list like this, if someone decides to give it another go. --Miss Dark 00:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, excellent find, Geelin ! Now we just have to do the work. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 12:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC) (User talk:Wikiklrsc}

Right now, we just have Borderline_personality_disorder#Depiction_of_BPD_in_movies_and_television in the article. No one has yet re-inserted the famous people section, newly edited. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 20:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC) (User talk:Wikiklrsc)

I was watching the movie Downfall last night, about the last 10 days of Adolf Hitler's life. It occured to me that Eva Braun, Hitler's wife, was a Borderline. Geelin 12:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Geelin. Could have been. I don't know enough about her and her traits and behaviour. I wonder if there is any documentation on that aspect of her. There might be reason to believe that AH suffered from it. (cf. disputed Adolf Hitler's medical health) Then again, it's like medical intern's syndrome. One starts either getting the diseases one is studying in med school, or thinks everyone else has them ! Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 14:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

One thing to remember is the concept of Regression (coined by Anna Freud) which says that people regress and behave more primitively under stress. Thus there are people who may have non-turbulent reltionships and relatively stable lives who, under stress (which can be anything!) exhibit traits of a particular personality type or types. cheers Cas Liber 20:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Livia Soprano seems to have narcissistic personality disorder, NOT borderline. just because a tv show misrepresents a disorder doesnt mean that wikipedia should condone it. olayak

I totally support having a list of famous people with BPD if they can be verified. (suzanna kaysen, for one.) maybe there should be another list of celebrities who are only suspected of having BPD. I, as someone who has BPD, am seriously offended every time fatal attraction comes up because she clearly has antisocial personality disorder, whether or not she also has BPD. People with BPD are most likely to take their anxiety out on themselves (cutting, anorexia/bulemia, substance abuse) and are highly unlikely to physically harm anyone else. Also BPDs are very sympathetic to animals because of the unconditional love that they recieve from animals and that they dont recieve from people. animals dont abandon them. So BPDs are highly highly unlikely to harm any animal. I realize that she does have BPD, but she also has something else seriously wrong with her. There are many articles out there about the misrepresentation of BPD in Fatal Attraction. I will post one soon. olayak

Yeah, I agree with you Olayak. I thoroughly agree.

According to the Wikipedia article on Rudolf Hess (Hitler's former deputy), some historians had classified Hess as 'neurotic'. Given the extensive reading I've done on WW2, Hitler, and his ministers, I believe that neurotic is a good description of Hess; in fact, I would go further to say he likely had a mental disorder of some sort that involved delusions. Some believe that explains why he parachuted into Scotland, to negotiate a peace deal with the Allies.

Apparently, Hitler's old family friend Ernst 'Putzi' Hanfstaengl gave American psychologists a profile of Hitler's personality during WW2 named "Analysis of the Personality of Adolph Hitler". It's worth a read! Geelin 14:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Monroe & Ibolya Oláh

Marilyn Monroe was "borderline" and Ibolya Oláh is "borderline" I think! --TransylvanianKarl 12:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there any documented evidence for Ibolya Oláh's being BPD ? --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 15:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)